About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
? >> the answer, which homeland security secretary janet napolitano conceded is no. underlying the according tos used by opponents of gun safety issues is the implied position that 30,000 people are going to die each year by guns and that's the way it has to be. it's the price of freedom. and it is absolutely true that some number of horrible events is, in fact, the price of freedom. you cannot have total security without the country becoming a police state. we expose ourselves to risk by getting out of the house in the morning, getting in a car, going into a public space, through there is a bizarre and perverse mismatch in our political culture about what risks are acceptable and what are not, depending on what the implement of violence is or what the origin of the perpetrator is. so, today, the manchin/toomey background check amendment, the gun bill, the watered down compromise failed to pass the senate's agreed upon filibuster of 60. keep in mind, it got 54 votes, four more allowed than if it was an actual up or down vote. it was fill bustered. >> the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied a
security secretary janet napolitano. >> based on the evidence at this point, is there any difference between sandy hook and boston, other than the choice of weapons? in terms of intent for death and destruction and injury, no. methodology, guess. we don't know the motivation certainly behind boston. we don't know whether was domestic, international -- >> or if it was identical to the motivation in sandy hook. >> we just don't know the answer. i think it is impossible for me to sit at the table today and say they are identical, except in the effect of impact. >> as i look at the evidence that is available, you have mass destruction and violence and andghter of innocents, neither case do we note motive. the irony is, we are so quick to call boston terror, why are we not calling the man with a high- capacity assault weapon and a high-capacity magazine, why are we not calling him a terrorist? >> i don't know the answer to that question. host: bill braniff, do you have a response to that exchange? ofst: the definition terrorism is an often repeated question. it comes up and all kinds of c
muller, attorney general holder, secretary napolitano and homeland security adviser on the attacks in boston. we continue to mobilize and deploy all resources to protect our citizens and investigate and to respond to this attack. obviously our first thoughts this morning are with the victims, their families, and the city of boston. we know that two explosions gravely wounded dozens of americans and took the lives of others including an 8-year-old boy. this was a heinous and cowardly act. given what we now know about what took fbi is investigating it as an act of terrorism. anytime bombs are used to target civilian, it is an act of terrorism. what we don't yet know, however, is who carried out the attack or why, whether it was planned and executed by a terrorist organization, foreign or domestic, or was the act an individual. clearly we're at the beginning of our investigation. it will take time to follow every lead and determine what happened. but we will find out. we will find whoever harmed our citizens and we will bring them to justice. we also know this. the american people ref
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)